The Supreme Court has observed that once the eligibility criteria are declared by means of a fresh Advertisement, the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’.

The Appeal before the Apex Court involved the question of reservations of posts in the government services of the State of Punjab, including reservations for women.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “...the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the issue by accepting the stance taken by the Department of Home which was that the post of DSP was rightly reserved against the category “SC Sports (Women)” on which the Petitioner was selected. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge for the reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020, the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’ as held by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008)...”

Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia represented the Appellant while AAG Rajat Bhardwaj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On the basis of a requisition issued by the State government, the fourth Respondent- Punjab Public Service Commission (Public Service Commission) issued an advertisement for recruitment to 77 posts in the State government services through the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020. This included the 26 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). In the advertisement, some seats were reserved for members of the SC community. A total of two vacancies were advertised for ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’-one for DSP and the other for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation Officer (‘DSJ/DPO’).

The Private Respondent applied in the ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category and the appellant too had applied as an SC Sports candidate. Meanwhile, the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020, were made and notified, providing for 33% reservation for women in all posts. Later, the earlier advertisement was withdrawn and a new advertisement (advertisement no.14) came to be issued. The private respondent stood first amongst males, while the appellant stood first amongst females, under the ‘SC Sports’ category.

The private respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court praying for quashing of the advertisement, not in its entirety, but only to the extent that it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category for women, in violation of the roster of January 29, 2021. The Single Judge dismissed the private respondent’s Writ Petition. Meanwhile, the private respondent joined the post of Deputy Superintendent (Jails), albeit under protest. When the matter reached the Division Bench, the Chief Secretary supported the stand of the Department of Social Justice, on the ground that a mistake had crept into the advertisement and the DSP post should have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’, and not ‘SC Sports (Women)’. The Division Bench referred the matter to the Single Bench. It is this order which was challenged before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that advertisement no.14 holds the field, and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent could be determined. As per the advertisement, there was only one post of DSP against ‘SC Sports’, which was reserved for women under the 2020 Rules, when 33% reservation was mandated for women. The private respondent simply couldn't be appointed to this post, the Bench held.

“It must be remembered that the private respondent participated in the entire recruitment process without protest, and made a representation only after the merit list was released by the Public Service Commission. Though the private respondent was not exempted from applying afresh pursuant to advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020, it was not open for the private respondent to plead ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such a belated stage”, it said.

“...both the Petitioner as well as the private respondent came be selected against their respective categories. On 26.04.2022, private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails) and on 10.03.2023. The Petitioner being the only SC Sports (Women) to have qualified is now likely to be given the post of DSP”, it further added. Reference was also made to Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) to reiterate that the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ once the recruitment process commences.

As per the Bench, once it was accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement no.14, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed as she was the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of DSP.

The Bench further observed that the advertisement follows the 2020 Rules, where 33% of reservations were to be made for women on every government post. Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women. This advertisement or the 2020 Rules were never challenged. “The respondents now cannot cry foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020 where the so called roster system came into existence. We have not even considered the need to examine the legality of this roster in principle. Sufficient will it be for our purpose to hold that post 11.12.2020 no change could have been made”, it held.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench and upheld the order of the Single Judge.

Cause Title: Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 479)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia, Advocates Anurag Kulharia, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Dr. Navya Jannu, AOR Aakriti Jain, Advocates Rajat Sangwan, Shikhar Narwal

Respondent: AAG Rajat Bhardwaj, AOR Karan Sharma, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, AOR Raj Kishor Choudhary, Advocates Shakeel Ahmed, Lalit Singla, Pratibha Singh, Himanshu Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.